What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?

[whartung]

The correct listing and identification of a ship is important to insure that combat
proceeds smoothly and quickly. To this end, a ship listing should be kept in an easy
to read format, and care should be taken that all appropriate information is available.

The listing attempts to provide all information which may possibly be of use
to the players and referee

Just want to highlight that there's no requirement to use the USP at all. Rather, a ship listing that is in a "easy to read format" and "all appropriate information is available".

Unless someone can cite chapter and verse where its against the rules to mount more than one of the same system type. I haven't seen anything like that, but I haven't looked specifically for it.

 

[kilemall]

Just want to highlight that there's no requirement to use the USP at all. Rather, a ship listing that is in a "easy to read format" and "all appropriate information is available".

Unless someone can cite chapter and verse where its against the rules to mount more than one of the same system type. I haven't seen anything like that, but I haven't looked specifically for it.

I distinctly recall a line about that but not near books at present.

 

[whartung]

These are them, me thinks:

A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all
batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP
factor). Each bay weapon is automatically a battery. The spinal mount of a ship (if
it has one) is a single battery.

If a particle accelerator is selected as the major weapon,
then particle accelerators may not be selected for installation in bays, barbettes, or
turrets. If a meson gun is selected as the major weapon, then meson guns may not
be installed as secondary weapons in bays.

Each bay weapon is a battery. Weapons installed in bays may not be allocated for turrets.

So, that's where that's more formalized.

However, that said, the USP format is optional. They just happened to make the rules so that the USP is useful.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm not exactly sure why they bothered with fighter squadrons on the USP...

LBB5'79 was much closer to LBB2 in the results, so large ships tended to have lots of space over, hence fighters, e.g. the AHL.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So, that's where that's more formalized.

However, that said, the USP format is optional. They just happened to make the rules so that the USP is useful.

Quite, but those rules are presumably there to facilitate the USP. We could easily allow turrets and bays of the same type, with a less compact ship description block.


My pet peeve with the USP-block is that it does not include the number of staterooms (&stewards), so I don't know how many people can be carried as paying passengers, or maximum in an emergency.

 

[Badenov]

Just want to highlight that there's no requirement to use the USP at all. Rather, a ship listing that is in a "easy to read format" and "all appropriate information is available".

Unless someone can cite chapter and verse where its against the rules to mount more than one of the same system type. I haven't seen anything like that, but I haven't looked specifically for it.

LBB5-80 p 30.

"If a particle accelerator is selected as the major weapon,
then particle accelerators may not be selected for installation in bays, barbettes, or
turrets. If a meson gun is selected as the major weapon, then meson guns may not
be installed as secondary weapons in bays."

Admittedly it's a completely arbitrary restriction based on the limitations of the USP rather than any sort of technical architecture.

 

[whartung]

My pet peeve with the USP-block is that it does not include the number of staterooms (&stewards), so I don't know how many people can be carried as paying passengers, or maximum in an emergency.

USP is apparently all about combat, not an actual ship description.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

USP is apparently all about combat, not an actual ship description.

Agreed.

But it's all we have for many ships.

 

[aramis]

Well, yeah. It's difficult to read as it is, how much worse is a few extra characters. I need a decoder to read them as they are. Adding digits just means a new decoder for me.

MT has a bunch of things on it's "USP" sheet that aren't single letter codes, such as sensor task difficulties, atmospheric operation speeds, the list of comms, and non-ship weapons profiles. The weapon USP codes are used, but that's because it assumes you'll be using the High Guard variant. (If you don't want to, the PM includes the character/vehicle scale stats for the ship weapons. When I run MT space combat, this is my preferred mode.)

Coding all that into single travellerecimal with up to 2 aligned numbers underneath would make it much harder to run.
The MT USP as it is is a good compromise.

 

[aramis]

Just want to highlight that there's no requirement to use the USP at all. Rather, a ship listing that is in a "easy to read format" and "all appropriate information is available".

Unless someone can cite chapter and verse where its against the rules to mount more than one of the same system type. I haven't seen anything like that, but I haven't looked specifically for it.

The CT High Guard USP has only one entry for Mesons, one entry for missiles, one entry for lasers, one entry for plasma. And, the rules in the design sequence explicitly prohibit it.

If a particle accelerator is selected as the major weapon, then particle accelerators may not be selected for installation in bays, barbettes, or turrets. If a meson gun is selected as the major weapon, then meson guns may not be installed as secondary weapons in bays.

Weapons installed in bays may not be allocated for turrets.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, you'd have a balanced load out.

 

[Badenov]

MT has a bunch of things on it's "USP" sheet that aren't single letter codes, such as sensor task difficulties, atmospheric operation speeds, the list of comms, and non-ship weapons profiles. The weapon USP codes are used, but that's because it assumes you'll be using the High Guard variant. (If you don't want to, the PM includes the character/vehicle scale stats for the ship weapons. When I run MT space combat, this is my preferred mode.)

Coding all that into single travellerecimal with up to 2 aligned numbers underneath would make it much harder to run.
The MT USP as it is is a good compromise.

It sounds like the MT USP is already pretty complicated, though I don't know enough about it to say whether it can accomdate multiple weapons of the same 'type' (such as turrets and bays of the same sort of weapon), which was what the expanding HG80 USP was originally meant to accomplish.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It sounds like the MT USP is already pretty complicated, though I don't know enough about it to say whether it can accomdate multiple weapons of the same 'type' (such as turrets and bays of the same sort of weapon), which was what the expanding HG80 USP was originally meant to accomplish.

Batteries work as in LBB5'80.

The UCP is slightly longer:

 

[mike wightman]

For sensors you could add yet another block to the HG 80 USP
00000
active signature, passive signature, active sensor rating, passive sensor rating, EW/jammer,

active sig - to hit size mod + config
passive sig - to hit size mod + power plant number

AA-0000000-00000-000000-00-0000-0000-0
Type-hullstats-sensor-defences-spinal-bay-turret-squadrons